Nathan Schmook:

"This was a decision that, in simple language, was reasonable for the jury to make." Gleeson

Nathan Schmook:

So Gleeson is suggesting the peals Board will have to find the Tribunal's decision to be "so unreasonable" that no Tribunal acting reasonable would have come to that decision.

If that is all we are presenting I'm quite worried.

Given the evidence that has been shown on here such as:

• rpfc showing that the rules allow for head high contact if contesting the ball and no toher way of contesting the ball presents - spinning out is NOT contesting the ball, and
• the medical opinions from Peter Larkins that spinning out was a risk to Viney's health,

I'm not sure why we seem to have just run with a "come on guys its a brace not a bump" argument.

Gleeson is doing the Chewbacca Defence:

Nathan Schmook:

So Gleeson is suggesting the peals Board will have to find the Tribunal's decision to be "so unreasonable" that no Tribunal acting reasonable would have come to that decision.

DIrty pool...

If that is all we are presenting I'm quite worried.

Given the evidence that has been shown on here such as:

• rpfc showing that the rules allow for head high contact if contesting the ball and no toher way of contesting the ball presents - spinning out is NOT contesting the ball, and
• the medical opinions from Peter Larkins that spinning out was a risk to Viney's health,

I'm not sure why we seem to have just run with a "come on guys its a brace not a bump" argument.

Nathan Schmook:

So Gleeson is suggesting the peals Board will have to find the Tribunal's decision to be "so unreasonable" that no Tribunal acting reasonable would have come to that decision.

DIrty pool...

Nathan Schmook:

A lot of legal speak unfolding here.

now they should hit them with vibe defence, the constitution, mabo and all that stuff

c'mon jack

Yeah...that's it...it's just the vibe.....

Comment From Matt

How can the Tribunal's decision from Tuesday night be overturned? Do Melbourne FC need to prove that Viney did not bump?

Nathan Schmook:

They need to prove the Tribunal acted very unreasonably….

Comment From Guest

the whole country thought the tribunal was unreasonable though

That was our whole argument done? Umm...

If we get off, it's because of the uproar. (And rightly so)

(But we won't)

(Or maybe we will)

i dont think he will get off but we had to appeal

Nathan Schmook:

In plain terms, Gleeson is arguing that the jury found this was a bump, who is the Appeals Board to find differently?

i dont think he will get off but we had to appeal

Agreed.

I will eat my hat if he gets off.

Nathan Schmook:

In plain terms, Gleeson is arguing that the jury found this was a bump, who is the Appeals Board to find differently?

Oooooooo!

"We'll show ya who!"

DG is right to make the brace/bump distinction the main argument.

If there is doubt whether it was brace or bump then you dismiss the charge. How you can have a justice system that says " we are not sure so we will just go with guilty"

Nathan Schmook:

we're now moving into more vision as directed by Mr Gleeson

In super slow motion no doubt.

If that is all we are presenting I'm quite worried.

Given the evidence that has been shown on here such as:

• rpfc showing that the rules allow for head high contact if contesting the ball and no toher way of contesting the ball presents - spinning out is NOT contesting the ball, and
• the medical opinions from Peter Larkins that spinning out was a risk to Viney's health,

I'm not sure why we seem to have just run with a "come on guys its a brace not a bump" argument.

I tend to agree. I think we needed a really technical legal argument.

Thats where they get you , on the legal technacalitiies,when what we need is common sense football knowledge. Don't like it too many Qc's involved

Hilarious. The poll on afl.com is should viney be set free? Who is he, Rubin Carter?

Doesn't sound like we addressed the "unreasonableness" of the original decision. Made valid arguments, but to be successful it had to address it in those terms.

Hilarious. The poll on afl.com is should viney be set free? Who is he, Rubin Carter?

He should be called Hurricane at the very least.

Hilarious. The poll on afl.com is should viney be set free? Who is he, Rubin Carter?

Hits harder.

I tend to agree. I think we needed a really technical legal argument.

Why not both?

It sounds like we needed to come out and list the sheer mountain of evidence and reactions that all combined show that this was an unreasonable decision.

It seems that if you picked a random sample of any 3 members of the larger football family, past players, players, supporters, journalists, CEO's, you would be hard pressed to accidentally select 2/3 who all thought it was a bump, and you definitely wouldn't have selected 3.

Thus the decision was unreasonable.